On a generally non-political list I'm on, someone is digging their heels in about the following statements:
Democracies are corruption-free. Democracies wherein elections occur with only 1 viable candidate are not elections. Neither of these feel like sound statements (Corruption free? excuse me: Enron, Monica, S&L, Iran-Contra, Watergate...) but I'm not quite able to grasp why, or what the argument behind these statements are. Normally I'd ignore it, but this person is A) extremely forceful in their belief, B) unwilling to make the argument other than say ,"I'm right you're wrong" or some varient thereof and C) is someone who is generally well regarded on the list. Can anyone shed a little light on the thinking behind this for me? tia -j-
